On 08/31/2017 ABIGAIL BOLDE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NAVISTAR INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
GEORGINA T. RIZK
EGS TRUCKING INC.
VASO EXPRESS INC
DOES 1 TO 100
KARAPETYAN ARMAN (FAC)
EGS TRUCKING INC.
KARAPETYAN ARMAN FAC
PITRE FRANK M. ESQ.
HUTCHINSON ROBERT B.
HUTCHINSON ROBERT BRUCE ESQ.
MAGILLIGAN DONALD JAMES ESQ.
BERGSTEN ROBERT T. ESQ.
CANTER DAVID H ESQ.
HOLM ESTHER PARDO ESQ.
JENKINS MICHAEL EDWIN ESQ.
BERGSTEN ROBERT TROY ESQ.
2/22/2019: Motion for Order
3/7/2019: Minute Order
3/15/2019: Association of Attorney
3/18/2019: Minute Order
3/27/2019: Proof of Personal Service
3/28/2019: Motion for Order
4/24/2019: Motion for Leave
4/30/2019: Minute Order
5/1/2019: Notice of Ruling
6/3/2019: Minute Order
9/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
10/24/2017: DEFENDANT NAVISTAR, INC.'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF ABIGAIL BOLDE; DEMAND FOR JURY
9/22/2017: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
8/31/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) NEGLIGENCE ;ETC
at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Augment Record (Augment Plaintiff's Expert Witness List; and Extend The Cutoff Date For Completion of Discovery...[for Argument]) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Argument on Defendant Navistar, Inc.'s Motion to Augment Reco...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ([Jennifer Tat (CSR 13773)]); Filed by NAVISTAR, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Augment Record (Augment Plaintiff's Expert Witness List; and Extend The Cutoff Date For Completion of Discovery) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Augment Plaintiff'...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by NAVISTAR, INC (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Plaintiff's Reply Brief In Support Of Motion for Leave to Augment Expert Witness List and to Extend Discovery Cutoff; Filed by ABIGAIL BOLDE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Refund / Order; Filed by NAVISTAR, INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANT, NAVISTAR, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST AND MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF; Filed by NAVISTAR, INC (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (the Deposition of Gegham Tovmasyan and Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Sum of $5,105.47;) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by ABIGAIL BOLDE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; REQUEST FOR JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by ARMAN (FAC) KARAPETYAN (Defendant); VASO EXPRESS INC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by ABIGAIL BOLDE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by ABIGAIL BOLDE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) NEGLIGENCE; ETCRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) NEGLIGENCE ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by ABIGAIL BOLDE (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC674305 Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Dept: 29
Bolde v. Navistar, Inc. et al.
Defendant Navistar, Inc.’s Motion to Bifurcate Liability from Damages at Trial is DENIED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 598 provides that the Court may order that the trial of any issue shall precede the trial of any other issue “when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby.” Section 1048(b) provides: “The court, in further of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial on any cause of action . . . or of any separate issue or any number of causes of action or issues . . . .”
The Court concludes that judicial economy will not be served by ordering separate trials on liability and damages. In assigning personal injury cases for trial, Department 1 acts as a master calendar court. In the master calendar context, ordering bifurcation presents logistical challenges for the Court and results in judicial inefficiency. From the Court’s perspective, it is more efficient to try liability and damages in a single trial. The Court is satisfied, based on Plaintiff’s showing, that ordering bifurcation would prolong the trial and result in inefficiency. Navistar has not presented any facts that would outweigh the inefficiency and logistical burden that bifurcation would impose on the Court.
Navistar also argues that it will be unduly prejudiced if evidence regarding liability and damages is presented in a single trial. Navistar previously moved for bifurcation of liability and damages, making essentially the same argument that it makes here. In the previous motion, Navistar argued that “bifurcation will promote the ends of justice by protecting Navistar from undue prejudice” and that “Plaintiff will attempt to draw on the sympathy of the fact finder by blurring the issues of liability and damages in light of Plaintiff’s undoubtedly severe injuries and the effect that these injuries have had on her life.” (Memo of P’s and A’s in Support of Previous Motion to Bifurcate at p. 8). Navistar further argued that “[t]he very nature of this anticipated evidence will necessarily play to emotions of the jurors and likely cause them to focus on the tragedy of Plaintiff’s condition as opposed to the facts and evidence related to liability.” (Id.) The Court nonetheless denied the motion. Navistar has not presented any new or different facts or circumstances regarding potential prejudice that was not already considered in connection with the previous motion. The Court does not conclude that any potential prejudice to Navistar justifies bifurcation here. Any risk of undue prejudice can be mitigated through jury instructions.
The Court has considered all of the evidence presented by all of the parties, and in the exercise of its discretion, declines to order separate trials on liability and damages under sections 598 or 1048(b). While bifurcation is appropriate in some cases, the Court exercises its discretion to deny bifurcation here.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.